Piers Morgan’s Final Shot

by Gerard Emershaw

Like General Cornwallis thumbing his nose at the newly formed United States on his way back to Mother England after surrendering, fired CNN host Piers Morgan has taken one final shot at the American people on his way out the door of CNN studios. In his final episode, which aired on Friday March, 28, 2014, Morgan said:

But that’s where guns belong—on a military battlefield, in the hands of highly trained men and women fighting for democracy and freedom. Not in the hands of civilians. The scourge of gun violence is a disease that now infects every aspect of American life. Each day, on average, 35 people in this country are murdered with guns, another 50 kill themselves with guns, and 200 more are shot but survive. That’s 100,000 people a year hit by gunfire in America.

Now, I assumed that after 70 people were shot in a movie theater, and then, just a few months later, 20 first-graders were murdered with an assault rifle in an elementary school, the absurd gun laws in this country would change. But nothing has happened. The gun lobby in America, led by the NRA, has bullied this nation’s politicians into cowardly, supine silence. Even when 20 young children are blown away in their classrooms.

This is a shameful situation that has made me very angry. So angry, in fact, that some people have criticized me for being too loud, opinionated, even rude when I have debated the issue of guns. But I make no apologies for that.

As Sir Winston Churchill said: “If you have an important point to make, don’t try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time – a tremendous whack.”

My point is simple: more guns doesn’t mean less crime as the NRA repeatedly says. It means more gun violence, death and profits for the gun manufacturers. And to those who claim my gun control campaigning has been “anti-American”, the reverse is true. I am so pro-American that I want more of you to stay alive.

But I’ve made my point. I’ve given it a tremendous whack. Now it’s down to you. It’s your country; these are your gun laws. And the senseless slaughter will only end when enough Americans stand together and cry: Enough!

Piers Morgan hates the natural right to liberty in general and the right to bear arms in particular. He has the right to think these things and the right to state his beliefs. He also has the right to be wrongheaded, which he most certainly is in this situation. The most important thing to focus on is Morgan’s claim that guns belong “in the hands of highly trained men and women fighting for democracy and freedom” and “[n]ot in the hands of civilians.” One could not possibly be more wrong about anything than he is wrong about this. Given that Mr. Morgan is a British subject, let us consider some examples from British history which demonstrate why the citizenry must have the right to be armed in order to prevent government tyranny. Mr. Morgan likely believes that his fellow countrymen are the most civilized human beings on the planet. Such chauvinism is natural. If so, then if civilized Brits in government can be dangerous despots, then this is certainly true of any government—including the United States government.

On April 23, 1930, British soldiers fired machine guns into a crowd of peaceful protesters at Qissa Khwani Bazaar in Peshawar, India. This resulted in the deaths of as many as 400 unarmed civilians.

On December 12, 1948, British troops in Malaya near Batang Kali killed 24 unarmed villagers.

In June 1953, 20 unarmed people were killed by British soldiers in Chuka, Kenya.

On March 3, 1959, 11 Kenyan detainees at the Hola British concentration camp were clubbed to death by British soldiers.

On January 30, 1972, in the Bogside area of Derry, Northern Ireleand, British soldiers shot 26 unarmed Irish civil rights protesters and bystanders, killing 14.

If the civilized British government is so willing to fire upon unarmed civilians, then it is clear that British subjects need to be armed in order to deter such potential murderous tyranny. If this is true of the British government, then it is also true of the American government—or any government. Human beings are human beings wherever you go. No humans wielding massive government power are immune to the lure of violent despotism.

Now that Mr. Morgan has some free time, perhaps he should spend the hour between 9:00 pm and 10:00 pm EST reading up on the blood history of his nation’s government. Maybe then he will begin to realize the necessity of the right to bear arms.

Cass Sunstein and Conspiracy Theories

by Gerard Emershaw

Cass Sunstein is at it again. The disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 has created an avalanche of conspiracy theories on the Internet. Was the plane hijacked by terrorists? Did its pilot fly it to some deserted island? Is it going to be used as a weapon in a future terrorist attack? Did it fly through a wormhole? Apparently any time that Americans choose to use their First Amendment rights to think outside the box and suggest alternative theories outside the mainstream, Cass Sunstein is going to use it as an excuse to get up on his soap box and preach about the alleged irrationality of conspiracy theories. Some conspiracy theories are irrational. No doubt. However, a statement is only true or false in virtue of empirical facts. While Ockham’s Razor—the doctrine that the simplest explanation is most likely to be true—is a good intellectual rule of thumb, sometimes complex explanations far outside the norm turn out to be true.

While Sunstein uses the phrase “false conspiracy theories”—implying that there are also true conspiracy theories—and lists a few such theories such as Watergate and MKUltra, as usual, he seeks to lump most so called conspiracy theories together. In the course of his recent Bloomberg piece, he lumps together such theories as the belief that the United States was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, that the United States government created the HIV virus, that vaccines can be harmful, that Princess Diana was murdered, that the Apollo moon landings were faked, and that Osama bin Laden was already dead when his compound in Pakistan was raided.

Sunstein begins his argument by claiming that some people are predisposed to believe in conspiracy theories. Thus, he claims, if one believes that the government faked the moon landing, then one will also be inclined to believe that the government was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Notice his strategy. He begins with the most ridiculous example imaginable and then ties it into a conspiracy theory, which while unlikely, is still plausible given how inadequate government investigations of the 9/11 attacks have been. What he is saying is that if you believe any conspiracy theory—which is to say if you ever dare question the government line about any event—then you are a tin foil hat wearing crazy person who thinks that Capricorn One was more of a realistic docudrama than silly sci fi B-movie.

Next, Sunstein claims: “Remarkably, people who accept one conspiracy theory tend to accept another conspiracy theory that is logically inconsistent with it.” The example he provides are:

People who believe that Princess Diana faked her own death are more likely to think that she was murdered. People who believe that Osama bin Laden was already dead when U.S. forces invaded his compound are more likely to believe that he is still alive.

Notice his strategy. He is using the Osama bin Laden example to again reinforce his not so subtle point that daring to question the official government story makes one a good candidate for a padded room and straitjacket. Apparently, anyone who wonders how a man who was possibly terminally ill with kidney cancer could have lived for so many more years is automatically a psychotic to tends to hold two opposite opinions at the same time. While the conspiracy theory that Osama bin Laden died prior to the Navy SEALs raid on his compound in 2011 is likely not true, it is not at all crazy to question the government’s official story on the matter. Why have the photos not been released? Why was the corpse buried at sea so hastily? Questioning the federal government and vetting any and all “conspiracy theories” about it is just due diligence in this day and age.

Next, Sunstein discusses the relationship between conspiracy theories and social networks: “If one person within a network insists that a conspiracy was at work, others within that network might well believe it.”  This is consistent with Sunstein’s totalitarian belief that the government should send agents onto the internet and “cognitively infiltrate” groups espousing conspiracy theories. It is one thing to send undercover agents to break up a dangerous terrorist group or organized crime family, but to waste such resources to infiltrate groups whose only crime is exercising their First Amendment rights? No conspiracy theory here, folks. Sunstein came right out and suggested this. What Sunstein is doing here is playing the guilt by association card. Some of your friends and family may be crazy and dangerous people who question the government. Ostracize such people at once!

Sunstein next discusses the concept of confirmation bias. When a belief is strongly held, one tends to give additional weight to evidence which supports that theory while giving less weight to evidence which conflicts with the belief. However, this works both ways. Those who believe in a conspiracy theory are no more or less likely to be victims of confirmation bias than those who believe in the conventional story. No matter what the belief, each person must be careful when evaluated evidence. However, someone who believes in one of Sunstein’s preferred conspiracy theories—such as global warming—are just as likely to give undue attention to evidence that supports the theory and ignore evidence which counts against it. This is just a human tendency which has nothing to do with one’s particular beliefs.

Sunstein concludes by stating that while most conspiracy theories are harmless, some are dangerous—such as the belief that vaccines are linked to autism. Furthermore, he warns that attempts to provide evidence against a dangerous conspiracy theory may only make the belief stronger: “Efforts to establish the truth might even be self-defeating, because they can increase suspicion and thus strengthen the very beliefs that they were meant to correct.” It is odd that he does not mention the weather here. It seems that any time there is evidence that global temperatures are not increasing, that evidence only makes global warming conspiracy theorists like him more inclined to believe.

Some conspiracy theories are false and some are true. Some are more rational to believe than others. However, conspiracy theories—like any theories—must be put to the test of empirical evidence in order to confirm them or falsify them. In the case of conspiracy theories concerning the government, the government’s track record of lying means that any conspiracy theory involving the government has some chance of being true. While Ockham’s Razor should be the first tool employed, there is no substitute for due diligence. There are just too many government conspiracy theories that turned out to be true to make it rational to dismiss all government conspiracy theories without investigation. See this link for a list of such theories.

Natural Right to Ricin?

by Gerard Emershaw

Daniel Harry Milzman, a 19-year-old Georgetown University student, was recently arrested by the FBI for possession of a biological toxin when he was caught with ricin in his dorm room. Ricin is a deadly toxin which is produced from the castor bean. There is no known antidote. There have been several incidents involving ricin over the last several decades. Ricin entered the pop culture zeitgeist when it was involved with several key plot points in the AMC television series “Breaking Bad.” Last summer Shannon Rogers Guess Richardson of Texas was arrested for mailing ricin letters to Mike Bloomberg, President Obama, and a lobbyist in an attempt to frame her husband.

In the case of Richardson, a crime was clearly committed. Mailing poisoned letters is an attempted deadly attack. However, in the case of Milzman, there was no attempted attack. It could be that having ricin in a dorm room constituted a clear and present danger. However, let us change the case a bit. Assume that someone like Milzman manufactured ricin and kept it in a secure location. Should there be a crime there or does a human being possess the natural right to possess ricin? Guns are no less deadly, and yet there is clearly a natural right to bear arms which is protected by the Second Amendment. Perhaps ricin is not as effective a means of self-defense as is a handgun or rifle. But so what? One can still envision situations in which one used poison in self-defense.

In addition to being a deadly poison, ricin has potential therapeutic use in fighting tumors. As such, scientists who register with the government are allowed to have small amounts of ricin.

If one is not using, planning, or conspiring to use ricin or the like to harm another human being, whose natural rights have been violated? Where is the victim? Why should it be a crime? There are countless substances which are potentially poisonous. If each were to be criminalized, the nation would be deprived of a large number of useful chemicals. So, where should the law draw the line? My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins. If I do not swing my fist at your nose, should the government ban my fist?

This issue becomes even more difficult. Does a human being possess a natural right to own chemical weapons? Mustard gas? What about radioactive materials? Does a human being possess the natural right to own an atomic bomb? While it would be ridiculous to claim that a person in the suburbs is going to use a working replica of the Fat Boy atomic bomb to protect his or her white picket fenced 2 ½ bathroom home from burglars or home invaders, why assume it is for self-defense at all? Just assume that this person wishes to own an atomic bomb. Most would no doubt not even be willing to entertain this possibility. A libertarian is willing to give it some thought. Some libertarians may even conclude that there is a natural right to possess an atomic bomb. Most likely the federal government would claim that there is no way that members of the general public could safely control either ricin or nuclear devices and that such things represent a clear and present danger. But can the federal government use this to allow its national defense function override the exercise of freedom?

As long as Americans continue to be arrested and thrown into prison for merely possessing narcotics, the nation is far from the point where it needs to genuinely consider decriminalizing ricin or atomic bombs. However, it is far past the time when victimless crimes should be dropped from criminal codes. Human beings possess a natural right to use drugs. They have a natural right to engage in prostitution and to gamble. Do they also possess the natural right to possess ricin or an atomic bomb? Maybe. Let us end the War on Drugs and other ridiculous Puritanical crusades which violate natural rights by criminalizing consensual and victimless activities. Then we can continue this discussion.

The Millennials and the Future of Libertarianism

by Gerard Emershaw

The long-term future of any contemporary American political movement is largely dependent upon the attitudes of the Millennial generation, whose members are currently 18–33 years old. Libertarian ideas have had a resurgence in recent years thanks to politicians such as Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and Justin Amash, television pundits such as John Stossel, Judge Andrew Napolitano, and Kennedy, and fictional pop culture icons such as Ron Swanson, Stan Marsh, and Kyle Broflovski. Oh, and also because libertarian ideas happen to be correct. The question is whether the burgeoning libertarian movement is going to be killed in the cradle as a result of Millennials having no interest in it. Is libertarianism a dinosaur or a dodo bird?

The results of a Pew Research study released in early March of 2014 provide interesting data which can be analyzed to give a picture of what kind of future libertarianism may have in the United States. Compared with earlier generations, Millennials are less likely to be affiliated with a particular religion or political party. Nearly 30% of Millennials are not affiliated with a particular religious group and half consider themselves political independents. Given the stranglehold that the two headed collectivist welfare/warfare party known as the Democrats and the Republicans has over politics on the national level in the United States, more independents mean potentially a greater likelihood of having libertarian ideas embraced on a wider scale.

Another encouraging sign is that Millennials are far less likely to trust others than are members of earlier generations. Only 19% of Millennials say that, generally speaking, most people can be trusted compared with 31% of the typically cynical Generation X, 37% of the Silent Generation, and 40% of Baby Boomers. One would think that this would mean that Millennials would be less likely to trust the government. Although it may not always seem like it, the government is made up of people. Hold that thought.

Millennials are also less likely than earlier generations to see any real difference between the two major political parties. 26% of Millennials see “hardly any” difference. This is another positive sign for the future prospects of libertarianism. If one in four see little difference, then that means that potentially that one in four can be swayed to a new party or a new wing of an existing party.

Unfortunately, Millennials seem to approve of President Obama. 60% of Millennials voted for him in 2012. 47% of older Millennials (born 1981–88) and 50% of younger Millennials (born 1989–98) approve of the job that the President is doing. However, these numbers are not incredibly high even when compared with the President’s current Gallup approval rating of 42%.

Millennials are more likely to support gay rights (51%), less likely to be religious (36%), and less likely to identify themselves as environmentalists (32%). These are all positive signs from the libertarian perspective. Unfortunately, fewer than half of Millennials (49%) identify themselves as patriotic. Not a good sign unless the Jingoistic nationalism that still often carries over from the Bush days has made them rightfully jaded.

The most interesting result is that the potential for libertarianism among Millennials breaks down according to race. Only 34% of white Millennials approve of the job that President Obama is doing compared with 67% of non-white Millennials. Even more interesting is the view of Millennials on the libertarian litmus test of government size. Only 39% of white Millennials would like a bigger government which provides more services compared with 52% who would prefer a smaller government which provides fewer services. This is consistent with the overall Millennial mistrust of others. If you cannot trust John Doe or Jane Doe, then why would you suddenly trust these two when they get government jobs and suddenly wield potentially despotic power over you? However, 71% of non-white Millennials would like a bigger government which provides more services compared with only 21% who would prefer a smaller government which provides fewer services. Given that the Millennial generation has a larger percentage of non-whites and that future generations will include even larger numbers of non-whites, this should be troubling for libertarians. In an earlier post, I puzzled over why there are so few black libertarians. The same question is no less puzzling when it comes to Hispanics or Asians in the United States. How has government been a friend to these ethnic communities? On immigration, the federal government has not been kind to Hispanics, allowing illegal aliens to be exploited by leaving them in a legal no man’s land. The federal government has surely never been kind to Asian-Americans. The internment of Japanese Americans during World War II is all that one needs to consider to come to that conclusion.

Therefore, in conclusion, it seems as if white Millennials are excellent candidates to embrace libertarian ideas. Libertarians must, however, reach out to non-white Millennials (and all non-white Americans in general). Freedom would benefit non-whites as much if not more than it would benefit whites in this country. Therefore, it is essential that those who espouse libertarian ideas—such as Senator Rand Paul when he spoke at Howard University—engage non-white Americans and expose them to libertarian ideas rather than acting like libertarian versions of Patrick Buchanan.

Is RINO Ryan Really Racist?

by Gerard Emershaw

Congressman Paul Ryan is a RINO. There is no doubt about that. His voting record screams “RINO” at the top of its lungs:

YES on TARP
YES on Economic Stimulus Act of 2008
YES on $15 billion bailout for GM and Chrysler.
YES on $192 billion additional anti-recession stimulus spending.
YES on prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients
YES on extending unemployment benefits from 39 weeks to 59 weeks
YES on Head Start Act
YES on No Child Left Behind Act
YES on making the PATRIOT Act permanent
YES on allowing electronic surveillance without a warrant
YES on emergency $78 billion for war in Iraq & Afghanistan
YES on Budget Control Act of 2011 to raise debt ceiling
 

The only thing that supposedly gave Ryan any conservative cred was his budget proposal. Remember, the one that progressives labeled “social Darwinism?” Remember, the one that did not actually cut any spending?

Paul Ryan is not truly a conservative. There is no crime in that. Neither are the vast majority of Republicans these days. But is the Wisconsin Congressman also a racist? In a recent radio interview with Bill Bennett, Ryan made the following statement:

We have got this tailspin of culture, in our inner cities in particular, of men not working and just generations of men not even thinking about working or learning the value and the culture of work, and so there is a real culture problem here that has to be dealt with.

Ryan is correct that there is a joblessness problem among blacks in the inner city. Black unemployment in general is consistently twice that of whites. But the question is why so many black men in the inner city are unemployed. Is it really that they are lazy? Is it that they do not understand “the value and the culture of work?” Or is it more complex than that?

Paul Ryan is likely not a racist. The race card is played far too often in modern American politics, and it accomplishes nothing. However, Ryan’s statement is racist in that it inappropriately blames the victim. This has become the hallmark of Republican racism. The Democrats tend to espouse positions that are equally racist. Instead of blaming the victim, Democrats praise the victimizer—the government with its welfare programs which only foster dependence on the state. Democrats believe that poor minorities are not intelligent or hard working enough to make it on their own without the Nanny State. The Republicans believe—despite bashing the Obama economy when it is convenient—that blacks and other poor people in America simply do not wish to work hard enough to become middle class.

Individuals in the black community in the inner city certainly deserve some blame for the appalling economic situation there. However, they are victims. The federal government has systematically destroyed the economy. It has allowed the Federal Reserve has destroyed the value of the dollar. It has allowed corporatist draconian business regulations to force small businesses to close their doors. It has allowed illegal immigration to become an economic problem. All of these economic scourges combine to create the dismal employment situation. This problem affects those in poorer regions the worst. Paul Ryan and his fellow RINOs should work on fixing the economy and then after they have done that, then they can cast judgment upon others adversely affected.

NASA, the Collapse of Western Civilization, and the Free Market

by Gerard Emershaw

NASA may no longer be in the space shuttle business, but apparently it is in the dire prediction business. According to a recent NASA-funded study based upon a mathematical model, global industrial civilization may soon face a collapse “due to unsustainable resource exploitation and increasingly unequal wealth distribution.” The study points out that many advanced civilizations in history have collapsed:

The fall of the Roman Empire, and the equally (if not more) advanced Han, Mauryan, and Gupta Empires, as well as so many advanced Mesopotamian Empires, are all testimony to the fact that advanced, sophisticated, complex, and creative civilizations can be both fragile and impermanent.

The study explains that five interrelated factors can be used to determine the risk of a civilization collapse today: population, climate, water, agriculture, and energy. These factors can lead to a collapse when two social factors are present: “the stretching of resources due to the strain placed on the ecological carrying capacity”; and “the economic stratification of society into Elites [rich] and Masses (or ‘Commoners’) [poor].” According to the study, it is these social factors which have played the central role in previous civilization collapses.

The study contends that wide gaps between socio-economic classes today in industrialized nations leads to over-consumption of resources:

... accumulated surplus is not evenly distributed throughout society, but rather has been controlled by an elite. The mass of the population, while producing the wealth, is only allocated a small portion of it by elites, usually at or just above subsistence levels.

 According to the study, technological advancements are unlikely to solve this problem:

Technological change can raise the efficiency of resource use, but it also tends to raise both per capita resource consumption and the scale of resource extraction, so that, absent policy effects, the increases in consumption often compensate for the increased efficiency of resource use.

The study predicts that one of two possible scenarios—both bleak—is likely. According to the first scenario, civilization

... appears to be on a sustainable path for quite a long time, but even using an optimal depletion rate and starting with a very small number of Elites, the Elites eventually consume too much, resulting in a famine among Commoners that eventually causes the collapse of society. It is important to note that this Type-L collapse is due to an inequality-induced famine that causes a loss of workers, rather than a collapse of Nature.

In the second scenario, “with a larger [resource] depletion rate, the decline of the Commoners occurs faster, while the Elites are still thriving, but eventually the Commoners collapse completely, followed by the Elites.” In both scenarios, the Elites do not feel the effects of the collapse until much later than the Commoners. The authors of the study theorize that this is why Elites in the past have been oblivious to such collapses. This has significant importance for the current situation:

While some members of society might raise the alarm that the system is moving towards an impending collapse and therefore advocate structural changes to society in order to avoid it, Elites and their supporters, who opposed making these changes, could point to the long sustainable trajectory 'so far' in support of doing nothing.

While pessimistic, a collapse is not considered inevitable:

Collapse can be avoided and population can reach equilibrium if the per capita rate of depletion of nature is reduced to a sustainable level, and if resources are distributed in a reasonably equitable fashion.

Right-wingers immediately reacted to the study in a predictable fashion. The Daily Caller claimed that the study concludes that the only way to save the planet from collapse is communism. The Daily Caller paraphrases what it believes the report is saying:

The only way to avoid calamity is to adopt egalitarian methods of resource distribution if resource consumption is limited and distributed equally—eerily reminiscent of those who champion population control or communism.

Tucker Carlson’s conservative website then draws parallels between the NASA study’s recommendation that population must reach “a steady state at the maximum carrying capacity” and Communist China’s population control programs. It also suggests that the study’s conclusion is akin to recommendations made by White House science czar John Holdren who suggested that “government should limit the size of the population in order to keep the Earth from becoming unlivable.”

It is disappointing that The Daily Caller would jump to such an unjustified conclusion. Communism has been a monumental failure in every possible way, and both its political and economic models are doomed to failure any time that they are tried. However, is the NASA study really concluding what The Daily Caller believes it is?

First, the study mentions population reaching “equilibrium” but does not state that this must be accomplished through government intervention. Creepy environmentalist totalitarians such as John Holdren are never shy about coming right out and stating the nefarious and despotic unconstitutional plans that they wish government to undertake. In Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment, a 1977 book that Holdren co-authored with Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich of “Population Bomb” fame, Holdren insists that all illegitimate children should be put up for adoption and that those who do not exercise responsible reproduction should be sterilized.

The NASA report does not mention such totalitarian eugenics programs as part of a viable solution to population growth. Nor should it. The best way for population to reach equilibrium is not through totalitarian brutality but through economic prosperity which results from robust free market economies. Economically affluent nations have low fertility rates compared with poor nations. Thus, the best way to stabilize population is through economic freedom.

Secondly, the NASA study does not mention “egalitarian” methods of resource distribution. The language that the study’s authors use is that resources should be distributed—not redistributed—“ in a reasonably equitable fashion.” This does not imply egalitarian redistribution. Like Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s, The Daily Caller seeks communism where it does not exist. Tucker Carlson, how dare you sir?

So many who consider themselves to be capitalists are actually nothing more than corporatists. These individuals confuse free market capitalism with crony capitalism. Such corporatists in denial assume not only that economic inequality is an intrinsic feature of capitalism but that it is desirable. These individuals savor the idea that there are so many “have nots” in society. For example, such economic royalists not only rightly oppose minimum wage increases, but they also cherish the idea that there are many people who earn low wages. Perhaps such people have low self-esteem and require someone to look down upon the way that many white Southerners looked down upon slaves prior to the Thirteenth Amendment. However, the truth of the matter is that free market capitalism does not entail widespread economic inequality. In fact, where there is massive economic inequality, it is a hint that a free market is not functioning properly.

One method of measuring economic inequality is to measure the income share of the wealthiest 10% to that of the poorest 10% (R/P). Examining this ratio reveals that wealthy nations tend to have less income inequality than poor nations and that economically free nations tend to have less income inequality than economically oppressed nations. The ten wealthiest nations for which this ratio has been calculated have an R/P average of 11.4 whereas the ten poorest nations for which this ration has been calculated have an R/P average of 23.82. Similarly, the ten economically freest nations for which this ratio has been calculated have an R/P average of 13.33 whereas the ten economically least free nations for which this ratio has been calculated have an R/P average of 34.91. Therefore, it is a myth that free market capitalism creates inequality. Those who savor such inequality are best advised to move to a poor nation with a Marxist economy.

Therefore, nations which are at or near population “equilibrium” are wealthy nations, and nations with a more equitable distribution of wealth are economically free nations. This strongly suggests that if the NASA study is accurate, then the solution to the problem of civilization collapse is a free market which will invariably produce wealth in a more equitable fashion which will in turn lead to population stability.

The United States has a P/R ratio of 15.9. Among the wealthiest and economically freest nations, this is lower than that of Singapore (17.7) and Hong Kong (17.8). However, it must be noted that neither Singapore nor Hong Kong is a politically free nation. Among politically free nations which are wealthy and economically free, the United States only compares favorably with Chile (26.2). Other such nations such as Switzerland (9.0), Canada (9.4), Australia (12.5), Austria (6.9), the Netherlands (9.2), Ireland (9.4), Sweden (6.2), Denmark (8.1), and Estonia (10.8) have far less economic inequality than the United States.

If the United States has more of a free market economy and less of a corporatist economy, then there would be far less economic inequality. Crony capitalism inevitably leads to a powerful and corrupt central government which “picks” the winners and losers and redistributes wealthy from the poor and the middle class to the wealthy and well connected. The Federal Reserve accomplishes this with its “inflation tax.” By “printing” money and allowing large banks to loan money while only keeping 10% on reserve, the Federal Reserve allows these banks to give money to the wealthy and politically well connected who benefit from this “new” money by spending it before prices rise. An influx of new “funny money” fiat currency inevitably causes prices to rise. Thus, by the time that this “new” money trickles down to the lower economic classes, prices have already risen and there is no benefit.

In addition, special interests such as large corporations and wealthy individuals can “buy” the government by giving money to politicians for their election campaigns. Given that the federal government has grown large and powerful, well beyond the scope of what the Constitution allows, these corporatists can use the government as their own tool. They often use the government to give themselves an unfair advantage. Such an unfair advantage is provided by creating business regulations which stifle small businesses. The large corporations can afford the costs of such regulations but smaller businesses simply cannot. These corporatists also use the government to provide them bailouts or cheap loans that small businesses and ordinary individuals cannot receive.

Crony capitalism inevitably leads to a smaller economic pie shared among a smaller group of corporatist elites. In an actual free market, monopolies are nearly impossible whereas in a corporatist system, monopolies can thrive. One also need look no further than the collapse of the Soviet Union for empirical evidence that communism will only quicken a collapse.

If the NASA study is valid, then what the United States should do to avoid a collapse is not to read Marx and start carrying pictures of Chairman Mao. The answer is to end the Federal Reserve, cut the size and power of the federal government, and allow the engine of economic freedom to create wealth. This newly created wealth will inevitably and naturally be distributed in a reasonably equitable manner. It is confusing why The Daily Caller would scoff at a study that essentially prescribes free market capitalism as the preventative medicine to stave off civilization collapse. Maybe Tucker Carlson is secretly carrying pictures of Chairman Mao.